|
So now we've gone past where we compare a single unit of one race to a single unit from another race, and jump to conclusions about gameplay from that. Now we look at a single stat of a single unit, and compare it to the stat of what we think is the corresponding unit of a different race, and jump to conclusion from that? Legit.
We just ignore the price, damage, HP and range of the units? We ignore the fact that banshees are invisible? That mutas regenerate? That phoenixes can lift? Are we complaining that mutas aren't invisible? Or that they have the shorter range than phoenix and banshees? Do we complain that phoenix cant shoot ground while banshee and mutas can? We ignore that invisible banshees only need to run away from the observer or overseer, not the phoenixes or mutas?
These random arguments from a little isolated piece of information makes so little sense in terms of how the game actually plays...
|
Blizzard MO for design changes has always been to over buff to clearly see the change it produces then tone down for balance.
|
On August 29 2016 16:53 Arnstein wrote: I think in this case "Blizzard" refer to a group of employees at the company Blizzard (the developers/balance people), then wouldn't "are" be correct? Like "are they"?
That's what I think, especially based on the "their" in the second half of the sentence. And I've been taught that the person writing the message gets to decide how is he referring to the company. As a group of people (plural), or as the singular corporate entity (in which case I would use "it" instead of "their" in the second half of the sentence). Maybe they've updated the rules since then, as the courts decided that a corporate entity can also be a person, but I disagree with that ruling as well, LOL. Lets see what a quick Google search brings us...
This one supports my claims and refers to the Gregg Reference Manual, Ninth Edition, where it says it can be both, just be consistent about it (which the OP did): http://www.ossweb.com/organizations-singular-or-plural.html
This one says its always singular (although it only refers to Australian/New Zealand English, would our American friend even be willing to support such a thing?): http://www.onlinegrammar.com.au/top-10-grammar-tips-company-names-singular-or-plural/
The economist (don't click on this one unless you really want to be spammed with pop-unders): http://www.economist.com/style-guide/singular-or-plural seems to go both ways.
What was the OP talking about again?
|
you cant increase the speed upgrade, it would be ridicilous. Mutalisks should be able to catch up to those fuckers at the very least.
Speed banshees straight from a techlab is ridiculous.
|
On August 29 2016 16:08 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2016 15:17 sc2chronic wrote:On August 29 2016 14:48 a_flayer wrote: If its "is" shouldn't it also be a singular word instead of "their"?
I think the subject is referring to the multiple people working on SC2 at Blizzard, and not the singular company, and thus "are" is correct. he used blizzard in the context of a corporation. though it is made up of many people, it is singular, not plural. in no way *is* the title grammatically correct. Well, I dunno man, I've had several English teachers explain to me how you can use both plural and singular in many of these cases. I think its fine. And if its not, then I call for civil disobedience in an effort to change the rules to better suit the reality of the situation. I agree, to me the title is valid. It just means that the OP wanted to put the emphasis on Blizzard as a plurality of people instead of on Blizzard as a monolithic entity.
|
You know, I was just shitting on op in any way I can by pointing out "potential" errors like all grammar nazis do due to repressed feelings of contempt for my English grade school teacher who sodomized me (in the figurative sense, though for others it may very well be literally), then you nerds have to go and ruin teh fun
|
On August 29 2016 18:01 riotjune wrote: You know, I was just shitting on op in any way I can by pointing out "potential" errors like all grammar nazis do due to repressed feelings of contempt for my English grade school teacher who sodomized me (in the figurative sense, though for others it may very well be literally), then you nerds have to go and ruin teh fun
the* fun
|
Is blizzard going back on its redesign changes?
there
|
the Banshee was too fast. Terran Air units are too strong. I'm glad Blizzard's first move is to weaken Terran Air.
I'm tired of climbing the Diamond leagues using bullshit sky-terran build orders and air unit composition recipes. i can't speak to other leagues or for other players whose APM drastically differs from my ~125. They could be having a totally differing experience. Just my $0.02.
On August 29 2016 17:40 NEEDZMOAR wrote: you cant increase the speed upgrade, it would be ridicilous. Mutalisks should be able to catch up to those fuckers at the very least.
Speed banshees straight from a techlab is ridiculous.
it is ridiculous. it was an interesting experiment and there is nothing wrong with throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks.
if Blizzard is going to let us in earlier on their development process then we need to give them room to fail. Room to be creative. Room to try weird stuff and just "experiment and discover".
This "going back on their word" comment in the OP misses the point of what a re-balancing process is all about.
|
They've always done this and have explicitly said that they like to think big and rather go down from there than the other way round.
22 range Tempest, Burrow move Banes, Burrow Charge Ultralisks etc.
|
It doesn't matter which direction so long it is a good direction.
|
With the liberator now being the starport's AG hard hitter, the banshee has to find a new role since they're getting shreked as a harass option by PO/libs/queens.
I'm not against giving a more important role to banshees in terran composition. They can give mech mobility and responses to multi proned attacks, while bio/banshee could be some kind of comp against protoss
|
With the Queen buff and the new Hydralisks air isn't what it used to be vs. Zerg, which is, safe to say, fairly overpowered in some cases.
The Banshee needs to be given a more dedicated role other then, "To kill workers" because at this point, every aerial unit is meant to kill workers. The Banshee's role needs to be changed to allow mech to spread out and have some rapid strike capability like the above poster said.
|
|
On August 30 2016 01:53 Barrin wrote:Which air to air unit that flies faster than banshee has Cloak? Or even air to ground that flies faster and does more DPS?
Interceptors underneath the Momma ship.
|
Banshee is a stupid unit and it's mostly used for cheese. It's not fun. It needs a different role.
|
On August 29 2016 15:31 Thouhastmail wrote: Sometimes I think banshee seems better suited for a ground unit - instead of that crappy Cyclone.
On August 30 2016 05:08 Shield wrote: Banshee is a stupid unit and it's mostly used for cheese. It's not fun. It needs a different role.
Banshee should transform into a cyclone and backwards. Cyclone only anti air and banshee only anti ground. That would be fun.
|
A anti air only cyclone would be pretty interesting.
|
On August 29 2016 18:24 Penev wrote: Is blizzard going back on its redesign changes?
there
that are a good reiteration
|
On August 29 2016 18:24 Penev wrote: Is blizzard going back on its redesign changes?
there Shouldn't Blizzard be capitalised though? To separate it from the weather condition.
|
|
|
|